Travis County Commissioners Court
October 25, 2005
Item 28
28 is to approve modification number three to revenue county 05400047 lc city of Austin for security services at the combined transportation emergency and communications center. And if I could get roger and his crew to start moving this way to we can deal with space issues.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. > we have had for a long time that we are providing security for the combined communications center. And while this contract makes reference to any time there's a change in the scope, it does not specifically reflect whether that also includes a change in pay and benefits for the people that we are using to provide these services that are then everybody pays their share. We had a substantial increase in the pay for Travis County sheriff's officers on a pop scale and two percent of that for what will be step increases, and that's going to be from here on out. There are also substantial changes in how much Travis County is putting in for health insurance. I want to make sure that if we're talking about shared costs, that we are sharing the correct costs and not people locking in on costs that could have been from three and four years ago. Can somebody enlighten me as to what this cost reflects?
>> well, my office has not been involved in the negotiations of this interlocal, so I don't know what criteria was used to note the agreement, but my understanding is that this is an increase from last year of about -- of over -- of about $100,000. And that does take into account one extra deputy, but it does not take into account the pay increases that were just issued. And my understanding is that that will be taken into consideration next go round.
>> what is this based on?
>> we generally run about one year in arrears because we're dealing with other government entities that also run a similar budget cycle. Since it is not generally made until September and the contract runs with the school district starting in August or with the city starts in October, there's no way for them to budget for those pay increases until we can give them those numbers. And those numbers are generally not available to us until their budget cycle is over with.
>> except we make the arrangements and we had to pay more for our Austin e.m.s. Contract that presumed their pay raises and increases in benefits. So it seems that if the city can figure out for us to have to pay more money for their anticipated pay increases, we ought to get the same consideration back and not have to wait a full year, especially when we are talking about a seven percent increase on 10 officers and a substantial increase for all of those officers on health insurance. Sorry. I’m not there.
>> we understand the issue, we at least ought to have a conversation with them and see.
>> well, look at our personnel costs. See what this number is based on, what are our actual personnel costs.
>> that was adding one person. As we saw from the interlocal -- as we've seen on 43 fix to go come up, adding one resource officer, when you talk about the base pay and the benefits, it is about $80,000, so this is really only reflective of picking up a cost of that new officer and a little bit more. And what you will basic basically be saying is that Travis County will be picking up all of those costs for a full year on behalf of a lot of entities where we're not even a 25% partner.
>> it happens all the time and it looks like we always (indiscernible) in a timely matter, but I think we ought to discuss this with them and see what they say.
>> and I just heard the beginning of it. But like with e.m.s. And that, the city told us they had a time of what they thought they were going to be in. In the interlocals where we're paying, we are not paying retrospectively. If we don't know the number, that's a problem, but then there probably needs to be a true up in the contract where the amount that we have overpaid is recovered the next year because you're exactly right. Otherwise Travis County pays 100 percent, but some of it is a timing issue.
>> and again, we all try to do the best we can, but we know that we have to do a true up and we have to do the little differential as opposed to this is all of the differential and it's a seven percent increase for 10 officers is not a small amount of money. It just isn't.
>> I think they need to know. And if the contract ought to cover it, so if they cannot pay immediately, then we just true up at the end of fiscal year and they compensate us. We've done that before. One or the other, though. I’m not sure we ought to just waive this first year and deal with it next year.
>> do you have anything to add?
>>
>> let's have it when it's ready. Do y'all communicate with them like daily?
>> I think we're just looking for consistency and treatment. And we are trying to be veriful of the -- respectful of the city of Austin that when they come to us and say it's not official until the city council votes on it, but this is what the manager is recommending. And we don't anticipate any changes, but we're just putting it out there, it isn't official yes. And we plug that into a very expensive contract on e.m.s.
>> you see where we're coming from.
>> when do we need to have it back on. Anything else today?
>> let me ask a simple question. Who really should be responsible for identifying this kind of thing when we're going through budget? I mean, I don't -- I don't think we ought to be asking October the 25th when we've started the year.
>> this is when it comes forward to us.
>> I know. I’m not trying to point fingers, but let's all sit around and say who is it that is responsible for this so that whenever we are doing our budget, we go -- the anticipation is this and we have -- because my gosh we have seven pages to the interlocal contracts.
>> I think one thing we need is consistency on our --
>> who can answer this question?
>> I have an opinion.
>> who has the answer? Whose responsibility is it to bring these forward in a timely manner?
>> during the budget process.
>> I would say the department with pbo.
>> but here's the deal.
>> how is pbo supposed to know?
>> in the budget process everyone knows what they're going to spend in that fiscal year. This is a revenue generating contract.
>> well, I don't have to have an answer. I think everybody understands the question.
>> the department managing the contract needs to bring it forward because they know the contract, they know the issues. They should be keeping up with the budget in their own department, which impacts it. Like the sheriff knows what it's going to cost, because he knows what it costs to run the sheriff's office. So I believe that the department managing the contract is in the best position to know. And of course we'd bring those to pbo because you prept your budget to them.
>> and last week -- yeah, last week we had all the amendment number ones to starflight and e.m.s. That put in the correct number for the budget. We have one on today, approve mod number 1 on our after school program. That is to update the budget figure of what happened. We're still doing the after school network. None of that changed. It simply says here is the updated budget figure. So we do this all the time as soon as we get past October 1 of putting in an amendment number one, a modification number one to reflect the accurate budget.
>> and my comment was that when we have interlocal agreement negotiations, there needs to be some negotiation consistency in all of those interlocals, which would involve maybe the purchasing office. So that the issues of what the cost basis are are considered, and we know the big picture of all the other interlocals that are going on.
>> have you got enough advice today? We'll have it back on in two weeks, three, or whenever you put it back on? We need a contract in place, right?
>> yes, we do.
>> two weeks?
>> well, this automatically renews. And it automatically renewed October the 1st. So we're under this contract right now.
>> we haven't sent the money. We need the money paid immediately, which I guess means quarterly.
>> this is a revenue generating contract, judge Biscoe. They're giving us the money.
>> right, but it's the wrong amount. There's no problem with the interlocal. It is modification number 3 reflects the inappropriate number and we need to get that sorted out.
>> well, it has to be renoakted, I suppose, with this --
>> that's what we're asking them to do. We're asking them to go back to the board and say, hey, the county's cost increased by this much and based on our formula, here's what your individual contributions will be. And the Commissioners court wants to know whether we can expect that money to be paid quarterly or whether we true up at the end of the year?
>> so we'll bring that back in three weeks then? Our budget analyst is out of town.
>> three weeks is the 15th.
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:
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:18 PM