Travis County Commissioners Court
October 26, 2004
Item 20
Mr. Trimble, number 20. Do we need anybody else on this one?
>> I don't think so.
>> 20. Consider and take appropriate action on recommended
steps from the central booking interlocal committee to begin discussions with
the city of Austin.
>> good afternoon, believe it or not, the rest of the committee
trusts me to be here alone and talk to you on behalf of them. [laughter]
>> assigned to things.
>> the committee, when we last met with the Commissioners
court, we presented some of the issues with regards to central booking interlocal
agreement. For your consideration. You approved those issues for us to go
ahead and start talking to the city of Austin about. What we have done is
we want to go ahead and kick that off. There are a couple of things that we
are bringing back to the court for consideration. One is the committee has
made a recommendation for a negotiation team. That would be made up of myself,
the criminal justice coordinator, representative from the Travis County sheriff's
office, which would be lieutenant -- I mean captain robin osborne or major
trevino at this point and possibly somebody else. And also the county attorney
representative as legal advisor. Also, in your backup, I believe that you
have a copy of a draft letter which is just basically a kickoff letter with
the city to let them know that basically the agreement, there are no provisions
for it to continue past the end of fy '05, so we would like to begin our discussion
with regards to developing an interlocal agreement to take us past that point.
Also to -- to receive any guidance from the court on communicating with the
court and the negotiation team will be communicating pretty closely with the
central booking interlocal committee, but also how the court would like us
to communicate with it as we move forward in the negotiation process.
>> so mike at what point do you bring in the auditor?
>> they are a part of the central booking committee. So they
have been involved in the process. The negotiation team, what the concept
was there is -- first of all, no one is really scliewted from the -- excluded
from the negotiation team. This would be the initial team that we would bring
in depending on what issues were being discussed with the city. For example
we my bring in the p.b.o. Or audit representative depending on what issue
is being discussed at the time. If we are discussing important like the operational
issue that's we had presented to you, we might keep it to just the negotiation
team as it is being recommended to you, we wanted to at least put this group
forth as kind of a smaller subgroup to meet with the city to begin the discussions,
then pull in people as need be.
>> which is pretty much mirroring what is happening on e.m.s.
>> right.
>> committee expands and contracts.
>> that's how I understand the e.m.s. Group is working.
>> so the committee would be the list of about -- about I
guess 14 or 15 people. That you cced in your letter?
>> yes, sir.
>> couple of issues have surfaced repeatedly, magistration,
identification, will those be part of the central booking negotiations?
>> yes.
>> those issue that's we put forth in front of the court
last time, we anticipate being part of the discussion.
>> community court, how it gets handled?
>> right.
>> I just remembered the cost, I remember the cost reimbursement
model, but as to a statement of issues, in addition to the two we just mentioned,
can you think of others?
>> yes. There are some that are noted in the backup that
we have to you. One is, for example, with regards to just a conviction of
a city prisoner. I think we were looking there might need to be some change
-- some change needs to be made to that. Then the magistration issue. What
we had talked about with the cost reimbursement model, the last time we came
forward with some issues, you had mentioned the issue of identification, and
then also we also talked about -- about doing something in -- aside from the
quick book, I think it was specific phied in the interlocal -- specified that
we would be using quick books, but we talked about having other options of
something to use. There are a couple of different things. Also with regards
to the downtown Austin community court, there's a definition in the interlocal
and there are currently modifications being made I believe to the boundaries
of the Austin community court so we wanted to look at fine-tuning that as
well with the city.
>> how complicated it was to try to figure out who owed what
and the true up and what was required there, it's -- it's a year and sometimes
two years after the fact of trying to figure out what dided and I think --
what happened and I think simplification and i'll call it transparency in
terms of what's going on here I think was also a desired goals, also one of
the desired goals on e.m.s.
>> that's absolutely right. Is that we are looking at what
the cost reimbursement model is looking at. The actual cost instead of trying
to project things out for several years, looking at the actual cost, trying
to do some type of true up to make sure that we are all on the same page basically
with the costs.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> mike, I -- I would hope that, you know, with this next
committee and sitting down and with all of the things that y'all are going
to be putting together, to bring to us, and I -- I think a number of the analysis
explanations, you know, make a lot of sense, especially when you start talking
about, you know, what are we going to do with 4,000 bookings that we don't
get paid for, you know, at this stage, i've got my office just looking into
-- made a phone call to you with regards to how do other counties take on,
you know, d.p.s. Incorporated cities, you know, within their county and this
and that. I mean, you know, 4,000 bookings is, you know, in the percentage
of -- of total booking is not huge but I mean, you know, when you apply, you
know, pretty simple multiplier, get $500,000 that you could get out of that,
I mean, I think that that is one area that we need to take a look at. Plus
I was a little distressed I mean I always hate to have to read something two
or three times to make sure that i've read what is said. The committee was
unable to establish the exact basis for the assumptions and parameters used
to develop the existing flat structure in the interlocal agreement. I don't
-- I don't -- hopefully we won't have to put a sentence like that in the next
one I mean, you know, we were unable to come up with establishing the charges,
you know, that we've had or whatever I guess what is that means. But I would
hope that we can really identify with the city like we are asking the interlocal
agreements that we have with them from e.m.s. And whatever give us some justification
or at least give us something that we can understand whenever we see a fact
sheet that says here's what we charge you for, here the costs. It would be
interesting for me to see a one-page summary of what our -- because we have
gone from the '01-'03 average cost from 116 to 146, which means that we are
really going in reverse unless we have really something in a new contract
with the true up capability that says you know I mean we are losing $63.93
for every one of these bookings that we do. I?m not interesting in doing that,
I don't think the city would be interested in us, maybe they would like for
us to take that on. But -- if I were the city, I would certainly like to have
some justification for -- show us what you have done thousand that it now
costs $146 per booking per 116, I would like to see that so that I can understand
it. But, you know, I look forward to seeing the -- the committee working towards
giving us some information, some new information on this. Because, you know,
that's a big business over there. And I think all I?m really looking for is
just a way to -- to cover expenses and so if you'll give us -- I know you
all are going to work towards that, but I look forward to getting that information
from you.
>> it was -- there was not any way to capture salaries and
health insurance. And it was -- you know that was a nice way of -- of putting
it in terms of, I think finally got down to this is how much money the city
had, and there was a slight escalation factor on a year by year basis. That
was it. It was not really based on true cost of service. And that's where
we tried get on e.m.s. When the very same kinds of questions were raised you
used to pay $300,000, now you need how many million? Same kind of thing, it's
a shock when you see it, but if you can justify the dollars you realize that
for many, many, many, many years, kind of sounds of subdivisions this morning,
they weren't paying true cost of service, nor were we on other things where
we were the ones buying a service from the city.
>> it's worked both ways.
>> I?m good for both ways. I don't have a problem with that.
>> yeah.
>> in addition to what was happening on the e.m.s. Side,
we also looked at some other interlocals that were very similar to the central
booking agreement, we had seen similar models like that, where it was actually
based on costs from the last year, true up type of proceed that was done,
we are looking to move towards something like that, like the commission said,
raise some clarity to the actual costs and what's actually being paid for
on both sides.
>> well, I think it's good that we are going forth with this
thing starting right now because in giving word to the city that hey we're
coming at ya and we are going to give you plenty of time and notice to see
what we are going to have to have out of this thing. And if we can justify
it, I mean, certainly don't mind making this. This is really great timing
to start it so they know.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> uh-huh. Second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
I do think that it's important for us to aim for like late spring, real early
summer. I?m assuming there will be some issues that you will not be able to
get consensus on. If so the sooner brought to the court the better. The current
contract expires under the -- the end of this fiscal year, right. I would
leave myself some wiggle room, if I was you.
>> we are going to try to get it done as quickly as possible
because there are issues with revocation of the auditor's office to do things
on a timely basis here.
>> thank you.
>> appreciate it. Thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:27 PM