Travis County Commissioners Court
August 16, 2005
Item 22
Number 22. Is to consider -- [inaudible - no mic]
>> it will be like two weeks.
>> two weeks.
>> August 30th.
>> 22 consider and take appropriate action on progress report regarding central booking interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of mittee,.
>> good morning, mike trimble, former criminal justice coordinator.
>> hold on. We will need a little more order than we have. Shhh. Shhh.
>> all right. Now let's see if we can proceed. Mike trimble, former criminal justice coordinator. I wanted to present to you the -- the draft amendment to the central booking interlocal agreement that's been worked out with the city of Austin for your consideration. On just to briefly go over it, the -- the main provision is a continuance of the interlocal from one year. It would add a -- a cost model component to it. And it would change the fee structure as opposed to some of the other renewal periods. What it would do is have the reimbursement amount for fy '06 to be $4,410,131. That is about a million dollar increase over fy '05 reimbursement amount, about 3.4 million. This will be paid in four equal payments. One of the other components of this agreement, of this extension would be that the city and county would continue to work on the operational issues and we detailed some of those there, including issues with prisoner property, magistration services, i.d. Services and we would try to get those wrapped up and bring draft proposals for resolution of those issues to city and county by April 1st, 2006. And that really is pretty much the gist of it. It's a very short amendment. And I did provide you some detail on how we got to that 4.4 million based on the cost model. We started with some of our direct costs, we had to back out some of our costs with relief staff because they are mostly post image sfraition services which is -- magistration services which is county obligation, then we get down to a multiplier amount, once we have adjusted central booking costs, basically the number of bookings for the city and that comes to our cost reimbursed by city to county.
>> we need to remind everybody, in terms of this whole cost model scenario, it is really getting to the same percentage of a system that we had related to the e.m.s. Contract. And I just want to congratulate michael and everyone else who worked on this cost model, especially shaun o noel and the others from the auditors office. This gets us past this, a lot of the fussing over who is what. You basically look at -- at it as a system, then associate costs in terms of percentage and again on the interlocal on e.m.s., and star flight, it just got us volumes past who does what. It's a system. And you assess percentages and it's the same concept and again I just -- it's -- we are moving forward.
>> so do we think that the city of Austin is in agreement with this approach?
>> yes. Based on my conversations with them, they are -- this will be up for consideration in front of city council on Thursday. We will hopefully have a decision from that side as well by that time.
>> who would be the county's contact person in your absence.
>> in my absence that will be carol coleburn, I will let her know that I will make contact with rudy garza my contact, the assistant city manager, to let him know that, kind of check the status on that. Hopefully they can reestablish communications between those two. Also absolutely I do want to thank the work of the negotiation team and the central booking interlocal committee who provided so much great analysis and support and participation in this whole process.
>> I guess we ought to have the names of the central booking interlocal committee, not necessarily now, but sometime today so we won't -- so we will know how to reach them if we need to.
>> absolutely. Okay.
>> carol probably has that, though.
>> yes, we have that documentation.
>> okay. Michael, would you tell us or at least other members of the court, I know Karen and I sat on this subcommittee we talked to you about it more, other than the other Commissioners. I know at first there was some -- I guess reticence or actually I mean, you know, why not ask, I mean, when the city first came to us what they wanted to do is expand the contract but at the same cost. And we obviously were resistant to doing that. What in your mind was it that turned them around or was it simply that you went back and said, you know, our guys aren't going for that. I mean, here's the cost, here's the percentage, I mean, obviously .7349 of what we take central booking, I mean, did you get a sense, I mean, because I would imagine that going next year that we are going to have, you know, the same which process going on -- kind of process going on. Can you give us any insight into what happened?
>> well, I think once I went back to the city and talked about what the court's decision was, this was really based on the court direction, I think we just talked through it. I think they realized what some of the benefits were to it that it is an opportunity for us to work through these operational issues and I think we both agreed we want to get this resolved so we can get a multi-year agreement in place that makes sense. As we talked through it, met a couple more times, they say that was the way it worked. I do want to say also that's real credit to rudy garza and the team from the city. They worked very well with us through this process. I know that in years past it may not have been as congenial a discussion. But I think that we were able to get them pretty quickly.
>> the other thing, too, is -- it was probably during this process that we also heart that the city was at least contemplating perhaps doing their own central booking. And, you know, I take that, you know, for what it is. I mean, I don't think that that was a -- you know, a veiled threat. Honestly I guess they really honestly may be looking at doing that. If they are then I think that it's probably better sooner than later for us to, you know, try to sit down with rudy or whoever it is over there to say are you in essence really looking at doing that because if it does, it ought to drive some of the things that we are doing and I mean obviously, I mean, I know that there are probably some people that would like to say if you want to do that sign up for it, then we're all for it. But do you think there's really sincerity from the city's viewpoint with regard to honestly doing their own.
>> I think they are honestly doing an analysis of it I’m not sure that's where it's going to go. I think one of the factors in it gives both sides some time to do analysis about what are good option, there are other option, absolutely agree that I mean obviously they need to do their due diligence to make sure this is a good deal for them. I think they were going to take another look at that. I think they are sincere in doing that absolutely.
>> they would have to work through things like space, transportation to get over to the -- to a central booking operation, I think they would have to be a back at you in their direction related to I think we have set the market related to people who would work in a facility like that and that's something that is not going to be lower, it would be the same. So we already cornered the market in terms of our good folks that work in central booking. I don't think people would pay -- there are certainly liability issues related with a holding facility that they would have to work through, I think there are attorneys in the community that would also help them work through their liability issues related to having their own central booking again.
>> I think also, I think in our discussions we both realize that I mean there are some real benefits to having this integrated booking facility. I think both sides, really -- do we really want to try to resolve these issues and see if we can still make it work because there are many good benefits to it. Is there an efficient operation, I think that benefits everybody. Everybody is coming from the right place and we want to get something done. I think that's a real detroit that side as well.
>> good job, mike, thanks for coming down because I know that you didn't have to.
>> absolutely. My pleasure. And like I said, if I can be a resource even from here on out, I would be happy to be that for the court.
>> do we need to make sure that -- do we need to put this back on next week's agenda just on the off chance that they make some changes or do we have a good sense that this is something that is already an agreement that will be approved word by word? Word for word on Thursday?
>> we have done most of the review and the wordsmithing things like that working with jim connally and the county attorney's office and their attorneys. I think that we have got the amendment pretty much worked out as far as language wise. Jim is that fair to say? I think this is pretty much the version that we are ready to move on.
>> so what do we need to do to get the revenue certified by say the first part of September? Do we need the actual contract?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> something from the city manager saying they are on board?
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. Anything further? Did you all think thank the big shot, I mean michael trimble for coming back from his new responsibilities to finish this.
>> yes.
>> this is a big deal what michael did, we had some rough [multiple voices]
>> okay.
>> elt thank us years from now.
>> I will look back fondly on it.
>> for providing a stepping stone for him [laughter]
>> we will have this back on anyway, okay? Can we -- next week or two weeks? That means next week. When you cry like that, that means next week. We don't need it, we will just flip it another one.
>> we actually need to move approval on this.
>> second.
>> of the model --
>> the amendment to the agreement that is presented in the backup.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We appreciate the hard work of all involved, including the entire committee.
>> it's been a pleasure working with you.
>> mr. Nellis is smiling like he was part of the committee.
>> were you on it?
>> mr. Derry berry.
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, August 17, 2005 10:52 AM