Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Item 20
This morning we did complete all of our business except item number 20 which is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: for the Travis County hospital district. May help matters to try to take these one at a time, I guess. Hopefully the first two or three are pretty simple. A is a process for determining Travis County programs and services to transfer to the hospital district. If you will look at the handouts from ms. Phlegming to me, what ms. Fleming did was to incorporate the changes that we discussed and on major one of her e-mail, basically we set forth a three-step process and out to the left there is item a and we attract the language from the agenda, and basically what we have there is what? Do you want me to describe it or can you? Or would you?
>> i'll be glad to, judge. Sherry fleming acting administrator for health an human services. What you have there in the chart form is the broad recommendation which speak to once the recommendation is at the point of being formulated by the committee and then how it subsequently gets to the agenda. The other document was prepared by mr. Collins relative to the statute for the hospital district and has more of the specifics of the items that will be coming forward for the committee to make recommendations about. And you'll notice that the document is color-coded so that for agenda item a, for example, these would be the things that would correspond with the first agenda...
>> we don't have the color-coded one. What I did was copy your e-mail.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> all right. Okay. Thank you.
>> but basically the color coding just corresponds with the agenda items.
>> okay.
>> so this would be the detail of how the recommendations will be formulated and then passed through the transition committee on to the court.
>> basically it's internal team working on these issues, trying to come up with recommendations, bringing them to the court for action, basically.
>> that's correct, judge.
>> and with the understanding that the court can modify, reject, approve, et cetera, but at least we would know this is how it's supposed to work.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. For jim collins it was to -- and his was in red, too, and he tries to indicate there in his view -- I think he tried to indicate what must transfer...
>> what might transfer.
>> what may not and what might.
>> absolutely.
>> this is for the county -- yes, this is the county process, uh-huh.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> right. Okay. So in terms of programs and services, actually the process is the little part that is under the three red dots on the first page, then gave more specifics about things to determine about laws to look at, legal standards in making that determination.
>> that's correct.
>> all right.
>> so any effect that departments or programs would receive a copy of this document if approved by the court to guide them in preparing supplemental backup for what should be transferred.
>> now, the part on page 1 of 4 is also from jim, right? Although it's in black?
>> yes.
>> things that must transfer.
>> and his thinking there was that those are, you know, basically those things that must transfer, so there is not necessarily a process that would be associated with those because they must transfer.
>> so on item number 4 where it says all unexpended county funds established appropriated by the county to sustain and support a hospital facility, would that include any reserve? So if we have moneys in the general fund, obviously we've got like 11% attached and stuck in the unallocated reserve. Would that include that 11% that need to be sort of related to whatever it is that goes?
>> it's my understanding that -- and i've really -- jim is probably the best person to answer this or john, but we've had discussions about this in the transition committee and it's my understanding that if it's unexpended in this fiscal year and it is in the budget, then you must transfer it according to this statute.
>> even if you lump it together into something called "the reserves" which includes unallocated or regular unallocated, just because it's all pooled in one place as opposed to separate line items related to the 11% it's still part of the reserve.
>> the auditor.
>> we pool it all together in one account?
>> there's been so much discussion about these things and I think that there's two ways to look at it and that is what is -- if the loss specifically requires and the other way to look at it is that voters voted to have a program operate independently and the moneys that were taxed to run those programs from the city and the county need to be moved to that independent agency, and so some of it is a matter of government has reserves, and can -- I mean I think an equity question or a fair question is could the district run if they had no reserves? Hard to imagine. We couldn't if we didn't have reserves, but I think some of that is a legal interpretation and some of it is how you perceive program matically what is the right thing to do for the district and Travis County. I think it's a blend of the two of them.
>> the good news, too, is jim's legal standard has brought enough for us to argue over the interpretation later. What I was hoping is that we basically approve this three-step process and with jim's memo as sort of advisory and in his view the broad legal standards that we must meet. I mean...
>> that's correct, judge.
>> I think the transition team struggled mightily with this and what I hope is we put together a process that will allow the court to make decisions about each piece as it comes up and has good policy discussion and guidance on, you know, where it is, where it wants to go, and so if this process doesn't make sense, you know, for individual court members, I wish, you know, you would let us know and we'll try and modify it so, you know, that our goal basically was clarity.
>> [inaudible - no mic]... You know, if it means lump it all together, to me that is reserve plus the expenditure, or the money that we budgeted for that. It can also mean that we can transfer over what's been budgeted and the reserves can be kept somewhere where if they come up with a shortage then when they come back to us, then we have the money to advance, to cover that shortage, to protect our financial statement.
>> so, I mean, I'm looking...
>> refinement of...
>> I think there has to be total separation, we are launching the ship, we don't get to hold back.
>> what I was hoping is that the -- the internal committee would basically make recommendations to the court and for the recommendations there would be specific reasons, and so today I was just trying to set -- we were trying to put in place a process that we would know what is happening. The other thing that I know is before really making specific recommendations to the court that we thought may become final, we want to have some discussion with the board. Seems to me that if some point the board needs to decide what it can take early on, in '05. It's really a major undertaking. But I was thinking that rather than sit and wait on them, we ought to make some effort to determine what it is that we think ought to be done. Some will be a whole lot easier than others and on the ones that fall in the gray area, the committee hopefully would land somewhere with a recommendation or come with alternative recommendations and give different reasons. We can see the alternative.
>> that's correct, judge. Commissioner, I believe the transition committee's goal is to have a rationale for each thing that we bring forward, and as the judge said, if there's more than one option, you know, based on the legal requirement, then we would certainly set those forth for your review.
>> but at some point, too, the definitions become real porn.
>> yeah.
>> how close are we to filling out our own attachment? We've been discussing this in terms of we've been able to dump the data from hte into the system.
>> we had a discussion about that on Friday. Not far enough.
>> i'll accept that, because the part two is we put it out there for the city of Austin to do likewise and, I mean, we can't have a combined statement if there's only one entity that is combining. We've got to have the data in a form and if we're having our own difficulties our own system, data dump, did we get a response to our letter that said please fill this in?
>> apparently we did, and what the city did is just have a list of questions and, diana -- diana has just drafted some preliminary responses to get something on paper for y'all to look at, and that's what this is. I mean you aren't going to want to vote on this today. You're going to want to look at it, and the committee look at it, but just as a starting point to answer those questions and we have some questions, probably, of the city as well, and she put a list of those on there, but I mean this is just a real draft in the interest of time so you would have something to start with and the transition team. You may not want to even look at this now. You may want to take it and get it this week. This is just a draft to get you going.
>> motion is approved that three bullets in the recommend process along with jim's legal advice that is contained in his four-page memo to us.
>> second.
>> and the committee basically use that as guidance when we work with the various departments to put together a document to recommend to the course, I guess. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Anymore discussion on that one? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And be is process for determining Travis County facilities to transfer to the hospital district, difference being b facilities and a programs and services.
>> yes, sir. This will speak directly to those facilities that staff would identify related to hospital -- to -- certainly we don't have a hospital, but health-related facilities within the county that we would bring forward for consideration.
>> question: does facilities include equipment?
>> I think that it does.
>> yeah, that's my intention.
>> okay.
>> I think that was our intention because I have --
>> it does.
>> del valle is a stand-alone building. Specifically in terms of equipment for sure.
>> and I know sherry and her staff has been working very hard on inventory with purchasing to identify those items and I think they're pretty close on that.
>> now, there's some little -- there's some blue language also that comes from jim.
>> that's correct, judge.
>> on page 3 and page 4, where jim deals with a whole lot more specifics, land, building, equipment, and this sort of he pulls from the statute for guidance, same as the red language on 1 and 2, and basically hoping the committee takes pretty much the same approach.
>> that's correct.
>> but in doing this, there's legal advice to different departments on what should be on the list and what not, and at some point we should see what should be left on, added, taken off, et cetera.
>> that's correct, judge. We hope to run that list through the auditor. We want to make sure, in addition to health and human services, to make sure we correctly identify the intended use of those facilities.
>> and I guess the question is whether the court has another step that the committee should take.
>> the action taken here today go before the Austin city council, those persons in authority to get in line as far as what we're trying to do.
>> I think...
>> we're moving right along in this process, in my opinion still it's going to be a timing mechanism. I think everything will have to be in concert to that end. My question is when will the city really...
>> subcommittee...
>> ... Bite into this.
>> speaking as subcommittee and also as staff, I have been reporting to betty dunkerly and I need to start sending it to councilman alvarez, i've been forwarding to them basically copies of everything that we act on and out of the clear blue they sent me a list of their applicants as well as a statement about each one of them and after our action tiewld I would send it to them. When we take that item up, that is one thing I would ask, that we basically share that with them.
>> their next co not until July 29th.
>> July 29th?
>> July 29th. I don't know what they've authorized the manager to make things happen or not, but the next council meeting is July 29th.
>> I think they plan to move on these and try to be ready to make specific recommendations of council, including their four members of the board of managers.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> john, trying to read the blue, where does the [inaudible] apply to. It says in the middle there these cannot be transferred. Does that refer to 1, 2, 2 a and b or does it refer to the ones below it.
>> I came down with a white copy. I don't know...
>> it doesn't make it clear whether that is a header and it's everything below that or if it's an after thought and everything above that. I can read this two ways. On page three of four, and you see the little thing in parentheses that says these cannot be legally transferred. I don't know if that is an after thought or 1 and 2, a and b or if that is a header.
>> I think those are headers.
>> you think those are headers?
>> yeah. Thank you, that works, I'm just going to draw arrows. Okay.
>> okay. Anything else? B looks good to me, move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Next one may be a little more thorny. Determination of Travis County funds to transfer to the hospital district.
>> this recommendation from the committee, judge and Commissioners, is relative to the transfer of funds. Also, we've asked that this recommendation be used and referenced to any transfer of contracts that might have to go over to the district. There was a question from the county attorney's office relative to the attachment which is the document the court previously approved from the auditor which outlines the funds and different -- it has a format for line items to be shared with us, and I don't know that john maybe can speak to what their question was, but that was something that did come up relative to this recommendation. Aside from that, this recommendation is pretty standard to a and b in that it involves formulating a recommendation, presenting you with a backup that would enumerate the line items and the fund balances of those affected accounts that we would follow for your consideration of transfer. And there's a corresponding section from mr. Collins in green, I hope, that speaks in more detail to the legal responsibility from the statute.
>> we -- if we put our heads together and figure out what the amounts are for '04, we really ought to be 80, 85% of the way home toward '05, right?
>> I would agree with that.
>> and so it would seem to me we come up with specific numbers that way and should be able to come up with them, take all the guess work out of it and the reason I say 85 to 90% there, is there's some things that are probably not in our bug but they ought to be expenditures either accrued or actual, and as the end of the fiscal year approaches, we're dealing with actual number, pretty much.
>> that would be correct.
>> judge, does that include what we've augmented to the original budget in terms of the actual appropriation of the $500,000 reserve for ours actually transferred in, and if we continue to be adults in this relationship, there are challenges within the r map budget that we need to make sure gets covered but that was not in the original budget. We're talking about the fully augmented budget, right?
>> that is my view.
>> I don't know what other option we have, but I mean state the obvious.
>> well, that is a very difficult issue, I think for all of us, because I think we don't have a positive balance or we're not projecting a positive balance in that account so the court is going to have to make, I think, a policy decision about how much you want to transfer based on projected rather than actual fund balance. Balance.
>> can't send them a deficit is.
>> I know. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting discussion...
>> work out by September 30th one way or another.
>> I think at some point we would look at our adopted budget and then look at our adjusted budget.
>> right.
>> and whatever arguments could be made, should be made, we make them. On one hand there's what the lawyer requires, on the other hand there's what good government requires, and as good citizens, good taxpayers and as people who want the district to be successful as it takes on this, you know, rather huge responsibility, I mean, that has got to be factored in for everybody. So, I'm thinking as long as we know what the figures are, whether they were in the adopted budget or in mid year, then I say we put them in there for networking numbers realizing that at some point we would have to figure out what the decisions are about how to treat them.
>> and I know the court is aware that the health and human services f.y. '05 budget was prepared as if there were not a hospital district, so therefore you would have the rationale to consider from some of the items that are in the health and human services budget for '05 in terms of our rationale for our budget request. So you would have that information and today at that to consider in your deliberations as well.
>> okay. And the ones that we went through in a and b?
>> that is correct, judge.
>> it's just in this one we do note they made specific reference to the auditor of pbo, and so the five of us working together to get this done at various stages.
>> absolutely, judge.
>> I think on the contracts, judge, I think in part there's been a great job articulating this. There are other contracts which pieces of it might be appropriate for consideration and I think that's when we have the discussion on contracts it's going to be a little bit more difficult to make an appropriate decision because not 100% of the contract would go but certainly some of it might be eligible for expenses. So I want to warn the court in advance that on contracts in particular I think it's going to be a little harder to make some of the decisions.
>> on contracts, too, we're going to have different dates, because while we're working on a fiscal year of September 30th... There is going to be at least three months of carry over moneys that are out there.
>> it's very clear that in this decision-making process about what goes and what doesn't go, there's some very straightforward things that will be easy to do, but there are other things that -- while it may be desirable, it may not be possible this fiscal year to necessarily transfer them.
>> okay. And what we do provide here forms that can be used to facilitate implementation of the step.
>> right. And I think what -- to kind of say this again, particularly for anyone that is watching, is the goal here is to get a picture of what it costs to run that program in totality. Since the law really contemplate aspirate agency. And then some of that is going to be real straightforward, get that out there, and then I think there's decisions to be made. I think what none of us want in this room is taxpayers pay for the same thing twice, so there are some things that will not split easily. And we can look at those that we're really trying to get our arms around the total programmatic costs that are contemplated for the hospital district and then, you know, like barbara said with the contract, it's going to be the same. Some of those is going to require some analysis and figuring out what are we going to do with this or that, and this is something that can't be split into, and if you had a tenth of a person doing something, where does that go? And my thinking from a financial viewpoint is that the costs need to be determined for the program as a whole so that in theoretically that's what transfers to the district. Then the district should be able to run that program. Then they have choices, whether they want to contract with the city, contract with the county, contract with another vendor or do those things in house themselves, but until we really financially see what it costs, both the city and the county pay in total for those programs, it's hard to do that, so that is what this is. It's a gathering of the total programmatic costs as we can best...
>> anything else on c? Then I move approval.
>> second.
>> I do think on that we ought to put in place whatever we need in place to get these memos to '04 and '05.
>> and I believe pbo is working on that.
>> okay. Anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And then we had a discussion in executive session about d last week with jim collins, issues related to independent audit required by health and safety code, section 281.122. Anything further on that today?
>> no, there is -- I was out of the county and training last week so I sort of got caught up by diana this week and meeting is scheduled with our auditor and with us in the city of Austin and their auditor. It will be at an agreed to procedures audit because we're not looking at two financial statements and so that is in the works. I guess one of the things the law requires one auditor, that what we ought to do is put a draft together so that kind of work is done so we don't make a decision and then have a lot of putting together of contracts and things that slow that down. That is of concern because I believe the legal advice that both entities have had is that a tax rate cannot be adopted for the city of Austin or Travis County until that is determined, so that needs to move. So I think what we will probably do, not to be presumptuous, but just start putting -- i'll have my staff start with that, have purchasing look at it, if it doesn't work, it doesn't, but I would rather have it ready so that we've got a contract that we can deal with very quickly.
>> need an exemption -- would that be an add onto the existing contract or would bit a separate -- I actually suggested...
>> as a mod, but still it has to be put together.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> right, buried in there.
>> right. We would have to mod that, that doesn't happen in five minute, we would need to get rolling on that so that we have at least a framework ready. I would rather do that and find out that we don't need I then find out that's what put us behind.
>> do you have any idea what would probably take to conduct that particular audit?
>> no, I don't. Part of it is, you know, the details that we're asking the city and asking our staff to put together, that will be the beginning points of the audit, so the better that information is, the better the documentation, the faster the audit firm can work with it. If they have to go ferret that out themselves, it's a long and lengthy procedure. But it will be easier -- I mean we find that with our own audits here, we contemplate what we need, get the audit trail, the documentation gets out, the audit moves pretty fast f we wait for them to come in an don't do anything until they get here and have to start making lists takes a lot longer, so the better the city does, the better the county does in getting this data together the faster that audit will take and with any major firm, they have other clients and other work so it's not as though we can pull a team together and staff recommendation tomorrow. They need notice as well an planning time. But we're going down that path and getting ready, but this data needs to be pulled together for them to look at.
>> okay. Okay. We need probably new language when it's time to about on that, right?
>> right.
>> do we need a place holder?
>> I would just in case it moves quickly. You also mite want since the letter to the committee was written by the Commissioner's court and they were responded to those questions, that draft that I handed y'all, you might want to have language that you can, I guess, draft that response next week, once you get a chance to look at it, and as I said, this is really a draft starting point so y'all ought to add -- we just figured in the essence of time it's easier to get some things on paper and start working with that rather than everyone starting a blank sheet. Application for membership on the board of managers including interview questions. We did circulate to lists this morning. One was a composite list from three or four different sources, then we got another group of questions from the neighborhood council. If we assume that each interview will take 20 to 30 minutes and we have 8 to 12, that tells me that if we got more than about six or seven questions, probably got too many. Now, I must say that there's a whole lot of information contained in the applications, resumes, and some applicants send a little bit more than that, the company statement that requires ourselves -- if we're familiar with that, that would be a whole lot of information. Still there's nothing like a face-to-face to give a feel for the person that submitted the application.
>> judge, I appreciate that. It's like please let us not go line by line through people's resumes, been putting on line what is in the record. I thought question number one about the attributes, it allows them to kind of highlight what they think is the most important thing they want to make sure we pay attention to within there, but there are a lot of these things on here that it seems like were redundant in terms of summarizing your experience and, you know, a lot of them seem to be redundant but they are in the resume and we ought to let the resume speak for themselves.
>> judge, this morning you kind of gave some type of schedule on how you want to go through this process as far as making sure we can come up with a short list of these particular applicants.
>> short list by Thursday.
>> by this Thursday, and if we do that by Thursday at 5:00, that will give us an opportunity to notify whoever we plan to interview next Tuesday, give them three or four days.
>> okay.
>> then the question I guess is whether we want to send the questions to the interviewees or not. I mean I assume they're a matter of public record. Actually, if they got a little time to think about them, then make the interview go smoother.
>> the anc, Austin neighborhood council submit the same questions to the city of Austin?
>> yeah, but I thought that the questions kind of fairly cover -- like give the applicants an opportunity to bring these issues up that were on the anc list.
>> they have some good questions.
>> I think they're already embedded in the resume, because the county asks such different questions on our application process than the city, I think this is embedded in the folks that have already applied for ours.
>> those look okay, does that mean there are no issues of conflict?
>> I really don't know.
>> the ones we got in the city?
>> I guess.
>> I didn't know how to interpret that.
>> yeah.
>> I can get that clarified. My guess, though, is it means they have not been deemed ineligible because of those conflict requirements.
>> okay.
>> it's the kind of questions that are asked on some of them that don't have okay or all seem to be related to making sure that there is a [inaudible]
>> okay. Making sure.
>> judge, are you looking for feedback on the draft questions that you passed up this morning something.
>> I think this is the appropriate time.
>> I thought number one was a good one, asking female talk about their attributes. It allowed them to highlight for us -- highlight their attributes. I thought number two was an important one in terms of ensuring the success of a hospital district, kind of gets into a bit of philosophy. I thought five was extraordinarily important related to the time people have to serve. I thought six was a good one as well. It's similar to what we asked on the rma in terms of people having an understanding of the legal framework. Kind of gives a sense of who has done their home work in the past. I liked 9. We've always had good luck with the question. Actually every single thing we've done related to navigating a diverse group of people to consensus. I love 11. I do want to hear about philosophy on public policy related to health care. I think that can be taken in a million different directions, all of them interesting. And then one I didn't think about until I was reading the Austin business journal and I honestly think we ought to ask did you vote for or against the creation of this district because I would like to know whether they indeed participated in the electoral process and their answer will be extraordinarily telling whether they voted for or against the creation of the district.
>> that last question will be interpreted to be a whole lot more political than we intend.
>> the whole point. There was actually somebody quoted in the business journal that basically said their sole intent of getting on the district was to make sure that no tax increases take place and a I think that is the kind of attitude we would like to take into consideration up front.
>> I would like for it to remain clinical and not get political.
>> that's exactly right.
>> well, why would we ask political questions, then?
>> because I think it would surface it.
>> it could be a yes or no answer. Did you vote for it?
>> a better question would be "describe... Put in your view... How should the board determine whether -- how and weather the district has sufficient resources to meet its objectives." Not did you vote for or against it.
>> well, maybe the public policy question would help address -- where is that?
>> that is number 11, personal philosophy on public policy.
>> that might help surface...
>> I would rather ask them --
>> I mean if you want to ask them during the interview.
>> same way we did it during the rma, we had the group questions and then we opened it up to each member of the court to ask any personal question and I asked the same question but...
>> I could see you asking that question and very appropriate. Coming from you.
>> and it could be did you vote for it or against.
>> and I really want to know that they're going to remain clinical and not political.
>> and some times the only way you can get to the clinical is to understand the political.
>> but let me -- let me interject this: when we did do those with those applicants that came before us when we were looking at the rma and being a part of the central Texas rma, I do not recall us asking anybody at that point did they vote to support the amended constitution that allowed for this mobility stuff that gave us kind of the ability to deal with some of this stuff as far as the rma is concerned. And I don't know it would be the correct thing to do and I'm trying to stay as consistent as I possibly can, looking at this and then using the rma, of course, as a model as far as how we did select those board members, and again, when that did come up on the ballot in November of 2001, to amend the constitution dealing with this mobility issue for the rma is concerned, I don't recall ever asking those applicants if they vote to support it or not. So that would be my concern, and I think it's maybe a better way to frame the question but not to say that anybody -- you can ask anything you want to ask, I guess.
>> I guess I intend to ask the question. It's my question, you know.
>> but I didn't want to -- I didn't want to see it put down in writing, per se.
>> I don't mean if there's. [multiple voices]
>> I do think number 3 is good question, though, 3 is why are you interested in serving on the board of managers?
>> and that is good question.
>> I want to be on there to make sure it's not successful, we know -- I would never vote for a tax rate increase...
>> that person, just disclose that, hopefully.
>> are you being truthful?
>> I never thought there would be somebody actually applying for something who was interested in its tying their hands so strongly that it could not succeed, and -- and that said you know what, I need to make sure that there's a question that fully elicits, so I will do that as the follow-up if necessary if I'm less than clear about what their intent is on being on there, because if they answer that thing, it's my intent to make sure there's not one penny more spent on this, I think they've got a indication of where they're coming from, if they're not clear, I think we owe it to people to say -- understand who is here as somebody that supports making this thing successful. I don't -- I just -- I think we owe it to people to understand what every -- what is everybody's hidden agenda? I want to know everybody's hidden agenda on this, sometimes you have to ask the political questions so you can have absolute assurety of thought.
>> I have 9, 11, and 6.
>> do we want to add any others.
>> and 1. I think the others we can kind of get to...
>> and that is not to preclude anything during the interview that we can't ask. In other words, this is just a guide, and of course, again, if there are questions that we feel that we must act during this process, we have all rights to ask those questions.
>> the only thing is I think we need to stick to the 30 minutes otherwise we're going to be running over...
>> I agree with you on that, Commissioner.
>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 questions. And that with the follow-up questions will get to 30 minutes right quick. A lot of these folks are what I call not only intelligent, successful, but people of substance, experience, et cetera, they will have a lot of say, I think, and so we would love to listen. After 30 minutes the interview is over.
>> I second that motion, judge.
>> even then I think we'll be in court until 5:30, 6:00.
>> yeah, with the caveat. [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> judge, do you have a sense of how full next Tuesday is?
>> I have a sense that the county judge will make sure that we finish court in the morning.
>> I guess my question was whether the court could finish even earlier in the morning to have a shorter abbreviated lunch or to have a couple before lunch, one hour rather than an hour and a half for lunch for the afternoon. It's just the rma thing was relentless and it went to almost 7 or 7:30 at night and that just can't be. So I'm trying to get to a place where...
>> those interviews on my resume is one of my most important accomplishments, now.
>> they looked fabulous but you killed us doing it.
>> i'll know by noon tomorrow, if we short list by Thursday, an start calling Thursday evening for interview, we will know then how much time we ought to have.
>> it seems like we could knock off one -- knock off a couple of them before lunch and then wrap up.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...) Year clear
>>
>> even if we did ours the 20th we're still nine days ahead of them.
>> they said they would not be convening until the 29th. We voted and told the people --
>> I understand that, but there's nothing magical that -- otherwise that basically means the second we finish interviews, we've got to be prepared to say, wow, these people are not or whatever. I just want to match the knot really.
>> (indiscernible) we should wait. If a majority of the court wants to wait a week, so be it. I may be leading the fight to delay another week after the interview.
>> I know after the rma it was kind of like do you want to review your notes, you want to be able to think about it and think also what's the best blend of people, because it wasn't just about three rma members, it was finding the right three folks that you thought would work together. It's not just a matter of this case, four individuals. It's got to be four individuals that are all -- that are type a's or type b's, hot, cold, whatever, but they've got to be able to blend.
>> do we want to do the interviews on Monday and just make the decision on Tuesday?
>> we've got campo meeting from hell on Monday. [ laughter ]
>> I can only do one large thing a day, and campo is going to kill us.
>> one of the calculations we did which I think is useful to have in your minds and the board as well is in fact the 7.2 cents were correct, and I don't believe it is, that was just a preliminary estimate that the report did. But if that were, we calculated the rollback rate on that. The rollback rate is $3.5 million. The reason I'm telling you that is because you have a very narrow band of money. And if people come in and say, geez, our idea is that we spend x, x, x, and the rollback grant will bring you 3.5 million, we're really looking for people who can work within that budget. The other thing I was thinking on my airplane ride back from my meeting is that the legislature is still talking about capping revenues on local governments and if they did that, we certainly hope that they do not for all the reasons that we've argued, but if they do, it would apply to this district as well. So you are going to need some board members really that fiscally can work or otherwise you will have people coming in here asking you for four or five million dollars, which is four or five times the rollback rate. And that's going to be a political issue that y'all have to deal with. And I was kind of astounded that it was that small, but it is.
>> well, the general public is -- were you saying the rollback right? I really do not understand what you mean when you say roll back rate. They haven't equated the amount of dollars. But go ahead, please.
>> with truth in taxation to fully disclose to the public exactly what tax rates are out there, what you do is first of all you take the current year's property, disregarding new property. You take that and whatever was generated by that you can set an attached rate for that same amount of money in 84 two. And by the way, I did put together a very simple explanation. I wish I brought it with me. Which I will pass out to each of you because I was asked to testify in front of a state committee and I have it. So what people think is that inflation changes the tax rate. It does not. What it does is it looks at the entire total tax picture. So to be simple, if we had raised $300 this year on current property, let's just say that, the effective tax rate is whatever it takes to raise $300 next year with the same property that we had. So the rollback rate is based exactly on that. What it says is that you can raise 8% more before you're subject to roll back. And what that means is that taxpayers can file a petition and they can put a roll back election on the ballot. And if that is on the ballot and if it succeeds, then what you have to do is you have to take difference and roll that right back to 8%. And there are a lot of ramifications in that. One is that every one of those elections cost a million dollars. So that's an expense to have the election. The next thing is if you've already put a budge together, which you would, and be spending along, and now you find you've got to pull that back, later in the year you're making deeper cuts. So the rollback issue is very -- is very important. I will point out that in the 16 years that I have been the auditor at Travis County, this commissionrs court has -- there have been no Commissioners court that has exceeded the rom back rate for the county as a whole. So that's the only reason I bring that out is because that amount of money is -- that's the rollback rate, 3.5, if the tax rate is 7.2 cents. So you have to have money on the board or it will be a very difficult process for you every year. It's worse in the county.
>> (indiscernible).
>> do there need to be others?
>> that's just for the record, could you go over the numbers again just to make sure?
>> 5, 6, 9, 11.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Please show the applicants that we will interview. What I have is what the city sent me. And I highlighted the applicants who filed at the city and county. Without without a highlight is only at the city. And the I is the ones we got Friday afternoon, but we will try to get a little information about the -- of the Travis County applicants. We tried to indicate the highest point of education more than just the -- (indiscernible) -- of the educational background. And employment actually started out listing the current employment or retirement. And on the attributes, we tried to put the most important about the applicant based on the information that we had before us. A lot of them had community service. A whole lot of lawyers and doctors. A lot more than usual than we have here.
>> I think the pool of applicants that you got are very impressive. The problem isn't going to be filling the four slots, but one consensus. Judge, how will we ininvolve our advisory committee? Because that was one of the things we said up front that as we go through this process we would find a way to involve them. I thought one obvious way is for them to be sitting in this audience next Tuesday, listening to the same answers we are, and that's why I was asking questions about whether there was any intent that we would have that next week because the feedback that I would like to get is from hospital advisory committee members who are not applicants. I wanted to get their feedback and just a different set of ears as opposed to my set of ears or any of the other five set of ears.
>> what we can do is packet up the applications and resumes a and plus get a summary. Thars and then (indiscernible) we will do the interviews on Tuesday.
>> i'd like to have as many of them that would like. But I would like to get a second opinion.
>> I think the city told me that two of the advisory committee members are working with them.
>> two different ones?
>> two different ones. The challenge for us is to try to figure out where to get from the list of 51 or 54, depending on whether we include the three late ones, down to a manageable number of roughly 10. And do it in such a way that we can give out notices of the interview on Thursday need or early Friday morning.
>> is it possible we can use a subset of transition team we already have working. I don't know if we have time for this, but from that point of view, certainly you and I are on that -- I'm happy to give whatever time is necessary to help work on this. I'm just wondering. If we used our -- we used our executive managers to assist us when we did the rma. Joe gieselman worked on that, alicia worked on that and christian, including on two who are not roadblocks, but they gave us the perspective of managerial types in terms of looking at things. I'm just wondering.
>> it is within the reason of the court to say in writing to the committee, in my view here are the 10 that we should interview.
>> if we have communication from each Commissioner, that would be fine.
>> then we share that with the internal team and then the team? We take that into account and try to reduce it down to 10?
>> judge, I think that process would be workable. I recommend that we do not have a scheduled meeting this week, so I would recommend that the team have a scheduled meeting preferably on Thursday or Friday to do this job.
>> I know the rma how we did it is that we had these different sets of eyeballs and then we kind of tallied up -- we kind of tallied up which ones got the most votes, and then -- vote is not the right word. Most in terms of -- most interest in terms of I would like to flesh that out more. And it was strange in that it magically culled out of thank you, but no thank you, and mildly interesting to the superstars, the superstars really did pop out. Even just reading resumes.
>> they did.
>> do you want us to each take a stack individually and then communicate with the judge? Issues the judge is not here on Thursday and Friday this week.
>> oh, well. How about Wednesday?
>> I think if we get that list to the committee by Wednesday, fine.
>> okay.
>> are you suggesting that the committee try to meet Wednesday.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> Thursday because we need to let people know for the following Tuesday.
>> fending upon the judge -- depending upon the judge being part of that meeting, you may not want to be part of that meeting. If either one of you are part of that meeting because you're taking communications from each one of the Commissioners that -- [overlapping speakers]
>> the problem with each of the five of y'all submitting to the committee your suggestion, the fact that the judge and Commissioner Sonleitner are part of that committee, that may be -- [inaudible - no mic]. One would be all right, but two of you there might --
>> the judge won't be there because he'll be gone.
>> if it's just you, Commissioner Sonleitner, that would work.
>> then why don't we try to get you our priority list of 10 by 5:00 o'clock tomorrow.
>> 5:00 o'clock Wednesday.
>> now, what about Commissioner Daugherty?
>> I would be happy to call Commissioner Daugherty and tell him he needs to send in his picks.
>> five p.m. Tomorrow is when we need to -- we send that to you, judge?
>> that would be fine. And i'll get it to the committee. Now, I do have three or four sets of those resumes in that application, so I want to make sure those are available. We have to remember to make one copy available if we -- to a couple of members of the advisory committee.
>> I think we made a set for every Commissioner, so every Commissioner should have a set. And if you don't, I think jackie, your office has additional sets.
>> we all have a set.
>>
>> so if we give everybody on the court one --
>> you don't have a set? Okay.
>> check with all the offices and see.
>> are those right there, we'll correct the spelling so it doesn't go on forever. The s is a small.
>> okay.
>> lower case s.
>> okay. It should be correct.
>> barbara, is there any other connection or -- (indiscernible).
>> Commissioners, we have -- [overlapping speakers].
>> we made them last week. I thought they had been delivered on Friday.
>> not to us.
>> okay. Commissioner, i'll go upstairs and make sure your office gets it immediately.
>> okay, thank you.
>> the motion basically is for each court member to give a priority listing of 10 to the county judge by 5:00 o'clock tomorrow, and i'll make that available to members of the committee. That we convene a meeting of the internal committee by Thursday afternoon at a time convenient to most members, and that third, I contact members of the advisory committee and try to get them engaged in a process with us. And that we try to get packets of all the information to the members of the court. And should I leave the others with you, barbara? They'll be at my office if you need them. Because we need to have four or sets after the court gets done.
>> I think your office is the best place, judge, because that's kind of where we've had the contact for all the application process. And all of our public documents.
>> judge, how do you rate the -- I'm not mentioning any names, but we have three persons who submitted late. What constituted late?
>> that was after 6:00 o'clock on July first. To answer your question, I'm not sure. I do know they came in after 6:00 o'clock, though. It could be later that day, could be the next day. I don't know.
>> physically these were hard copies of these things were physically brought in?
>> I don't know that either. Either they were late in getting on the e-mail or they were late in delivery to my office. But we should know that because we mark them. My guess is that they were probably hand delivered. But we will file mark the time of delivery and date.
>> I know one of them was e-mailed late, at least one.
>> without -- just where I'm coming from is I'm not even looking at the late, we had a deadline, we've been yelling at people the deadline is the deadline is the deadline, and I'm sorry, it's late. If that were the purchasing office, you don't even get to look at them. And I hate to sound harsh, but sorry. I don't think they ought to be in the mix.
>> now, if you want somebody to find out the reason for the lateness or the applicant's response, that could be done.
>> I don't think it's relevant.
>> that's a question for court.
>> we have a two-part motion in which -- did you get all of it?
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And then the persons selected to be interviewed on July 13th, and it seems to me that what we ought to do is try to give as much notice as possible, and that means if we know the 10 or so by Thursday, we need to start e-mailing and phoning Thursday. There may be a reason to try to have the work done by 4:30 if possible. As far as I know, I think we have pretty much e-mails and addresses and phone numbers for all of them. And we need to start giving notice to those who are to be interviewed late Thursday.
>> we'll try. We're not going to have the meeting until Thursday afternoon, so this election process may make that --
>> how do we know that?
>> well, I guess we could have it Thursday morning. Okay.
>> you don't have the county judge to push you around on Thursday. [ laughter ]
>> okay.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> a question, judge. In term of the questions being provided to the potential interviewees is would the courting interested in making that a part of your motion, that we provide the interview questions? There was earlier conversation about fact that they are of public record.
>> that's what I would do. We can just e-mail the questions also. And if we e-mail the questions by Friday, that may be good. The questions may be a little less important than the schedules of different s.i.d.s. Vidz. If we get it to them on Friday, they have at least the weekend or Monday. So let's say Friday morning let's get the questioned e-mailed and if somebody wants a hard copy, we can fax those to them.
>> everybody has got an e-mail address.
>> and anything left for executive session? The other directions are here for the court regarding scheduling next week is to try to keep it as streamlined as possible, and if necessary to let somebody know tomorrow afternoon what time I think the other items on the agenda next Tuesday will take. And we'll try to -- (indiscernible).
>> not to be involved in subdivisions in precinct 3 and nothing on the landfill, please, y'all.
>> anything further today?
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:51 PM