Travis County Commissioners Court
February 28, 2006
Item 12
The medical examiner's item is number 12. It is to consider and take appropriate action on progress report, issue paper and related issues on the medical examiner's office. And we indicate that the item may be taken into executive session for discussion of personnel matters and it may not, depending on how this conversation goes.
>> yes, sir. Good morning. Alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations and interim chief administrative officer for the medical examiner's office. That's a lot of titles. Anyway, what it comes down to is coming before you to follow-up on a report that we presented to you on February the 16th, and then we also presented it to a joint committee of the Commissioners court and the city of Austin city council. And what we have here is several items that we'll follow up and continue the improvements and take action steps on that particular report. The first one is, a, authorize staff to negotiate the following items: new medical examiner's employment contracts and salaries for medical examiners. We've conducted a market salary survey and this is one of the items that will probably need to be taken into executive session to discuss specifics on contracts and salaries, but we do have all the --
>> what the market -- the survey, what does that include? What scope or area did we have --
>> we looked at tarrant, dallas, harris, el paso and bexar county.
>> those five counties?
>> yes. We also looked at king county, I believe, and milwaukee, the other out of state private sector pathologists.
>> okay, thank you.
>> and you had also instructed the -- the county attorney spoke to you about particular contracts, the out of county contracts where we pay $300 per autopsy for those contracts and a desire to change that. And I think the county attorney was aware of that. And we also need to take that to executive session for advice from counsel. Go ahead and move on to item b --
>> on a, what if we have a subcommittee of the court. Do you expect for an assistant county attorney to be part of those negotiations?
>> yes, in terms of the contract.
>> we did receive legal advice already, either we're going to do it or not. I don't know that there are any additional legal questions. Do we have any? If it's just a matter of getting it done whrks you sit down and chat with the individual pathologists, everything will turn on the amount that we arrive at. And it seems to me ma the range that the court already adopted -- we did adopt this, right?
>> yes.
>> the range that we already adopted, the ranges are large enough to accommodate a good discussion, and based on what they're making right now, seeing that, as I recall, all of them are kind of within the ranges if we consider all that they're earning right now with their salary plus the out of county stuff. So in my view in a what we ought to do -- I do think there ought to be at least one member of the court on the team, and that we ought to have an assistant county attorney there too, so if there are contract issues, then we'll be able to discuss those fully with the pathologists that we're having the discussion with. When do you anticipate these discussions taking place?
>> the next couple of weeks.
>> starting two weeks from now?
>> no, sir. Starting really as early as possible, this week and then next week and being able to come back to the court by early March.
>> so does that leave the county judge? The county judge doing it?
>> I can work on it, making sure that we utilize our time very wisely. It's a small window available.
>> what you have in mind is sitting with a pathologist and trying to arrive at an agreed salary, bringing that back to the court in the form of a recommendation.
>> there are --
>> you don't plan to finally negotiate a salary, you plan to finally negotiate a recommendation to the Commissioners court.
>> it's I think a little bit more intricate than that. There is a proposal that we'd like to discuss with the court that would be an interim salary structure between now and the time that we are named accredited. Joe put together a proposal that he would like to present to the court. And then there is also a discussion in executive session on how to handle the medical examiner and the private autopsies between now and the time that you set a salary. So there's almost three components. How you handle me's and pa's between the time that you negotiate salary, whether it be two to three weeks. Secondly is actually negotiating a salary. And then third is the overall pay structure that you adopt between now and the time you become name accredited.
>> when we adopted the salary ranges that y'all recommended, why weren't we setting the parameters for salary discussion? Do you see what I知 saying? Those are in place already. We've adopted those and there seems to be complete flexibility, if I recall the amounts. Do you see what I知 saying? So why isn't that piece done? So when we sit down with pathologists, we go on with the -- armed with the ranges that the court's approved and we approved those based on y'all's recommendation. So we know they're good, right?
>> yes.
>> and they're good based on the salary -- based on the total compensation that we're now paying for pathologists,, including the medical examiner. So the low end of it is less than they make, but the upper end in every case is more than they're making. So when we put those ranges in place, I thought -- what we thought we were doing was to set parameters basically that would guide us in negotiations with the pathologists, but would give us an opportunity to be realistic in terms of the amount that we likely would end at. So what am I missing here?
>> okay. Productivity. The addressing performance and productivity.
>> so y'all didn't consider that in setting the ranges?
>> no, sir. That is reflective of what someone is paid. It is not reflective of how many autopsies they conduct, the quality of their autopsies. That reflects more a pay range.
>> but isn't our goal to change all of that?
>> yes.
>> that's what I知 saying. So if you did 500 autopsies last year, our goal is not for you to do 500 this year. Especially after the changes that we have approved or implemented. So we're bringing additional personnel on to reduce the work load of each pathologist. So I don't know that -- we cannot be guided by the number of autopsies you did last year. If we look at the number that you ought to do this year, especially after we do the hiring, then shouldn't your total in '06 be less than '05?
>> it should be.
>> the only reason it would be more is that we lose people and we don't hire for the positions -- post it. Now, the question now too is for us to open up salary ranges again is not an executive session discussion.
>> no, it's not necessary. There is one issue that could be taken into executive session for legal comment.
>> legal advice?
>> yes, legal advice. What the pathologists are currently paid and what they ought to be paid when their work load is decreased might not be the same thing, so that when you set the salary now, it might be visible within -- advisable within your salary ranges that you have already set to say that you get this much that you're going to keep getting even when the work load goes down to what we expect it to after name accreditation. And if you do this much beyond what you will have to do under name accreditation in terms of number of autopsies, then we'll give you a bit more as incentive. And that gives them sort of a bridging kind of thing between what's appropriate for the amount of work they would do when the process is complete and what they will have to do in the meantime. And the question that can be raised as a legal issue is can you address within a county salary and under the constitution the concept of incentive pay for the additional work that will happen between now and the finalization of name accreditation.
>> now, we have not approved an incentive pay policy for the pathologists.
>> that's correct.
>> I thought that when we set the ranges, though, we were putting ourselves in a position where we could do the right thing. I never thought that the pathologists would end up making less money. I did think they would end up doing less work and we would promote -- we would stress quality a bit more. Do you understand what I知 saying? And when we adopted the ranges, I never thought that we would negotiate a lower salary for any pathologist. So in my view the thing to do now is not to have another discussion unless we really want to discuss an incentive pay policy, which we need to see a draft of to really seriously discuss. But I would go off and negotiate and then whatever -- if unexpected developments occur, then we just have to deal with those. But based on what I was told the pathologists were saying, the ranges make me feel comfortable.
>> they do, judge. And it's not -- again, I must stress it is not the pay component as it's the performance component. It is what you are paying for that needs clarification and standards. It's like what we do with all other employees. You set a pay range, but you also set performance standards for them to say, these are the things that you're going to get done. There was a sense that if you went to straight salary, how would you have any say as to what was being done? How do you express the quality of work? That has to be entailed into that -- it doesn't have to do with pay structures at all, it has to do with the work plan that is tied to pay.
>> well, I have asked several times, what are the best practices for compensation in the other urban counties? And if they have incentive pay, I知 thinking they have an incentive pay policy, right? This is the first I致e heard of this. If they have incentive pay policies in place, then we ought to post an item that allows us to review them. Then if we want to adopt one and get the legal advice on those too, we can do it. I didn't see that as a specific recommendation included in the list, though.
>> it's something that has come up as y'all work on the proposal?
>> we're really responding to concerns. If you've set a salary, okay, and a person is going to get the same thing as they were paid before, there has been concerns expressed are they going to work the same as they did before? Before you had $300 that you paid per out of county autopsies. Now you're not going to pay that.
>> we were told that wasn't working. We were told everybody was --
>> but how are you going to guarantee that once you set the straight salary that they're going to do the same work? You have to tie it to a performance measure. That's all we're saying. It's just performance measures.
>> judge, I知 kind of -- well, all of this is within the realm of --
>> my recommendation is if we want to consider an incentive pay policy, then we ought to see a draft and put it on the agenda and consider it. But in terms of a here, if the salary is important to the pathologists, then I think the subcommittee should go ahead and start working. And if that surfaces as a significant issue, it may be that we need to deal with it before we take final action on any salary.
>> okay.
>> but now, see, when we take these recommendations, I知 sitting here thinking there are a whole lot of recommendations that have already been approved, but not implemented. Some have been implemented, some have not. Overrule this should be a changed medical examiner's office. I知 not sure how we have conducted business historically should guide us unless we just conclude that we want to change that and do something else, which is -- I致e been working under the assumption that we're really striving for a new and better model. Compensation, work load and everything else. So I知 flexible enough to see whatever policy you think we ought to, but the law gives guidance on how we ought to do that. My reading of 12-a, is that we need to start negotiating with the pathologists and the medical examiner, and my only recommendation was that I think making an assistant county attorney -- I guess barbara wilson would be the logical person. And at least one member of the Commissioners court part of that would be important. And what this small group would do is make a recommendation on salaries to the Commissioners court. I think it's important to realize ultimately the court makes the call on it, and that really turns on a whole lot of factors.
>> yes, sir.
>> the thing I want to get in here is I知 real uncomfortable with the words like using incentive-based pay because it seems like we're not getting away from where we were before, and that is that we're compensating for a certain output as opposed to a certain performance, and performance includes quality. So for me I see this as -- the m word. Where do we place them on the matrix? To me I think we do have a flexible enough pay range to appropriately place somebody as though we are starting brand new into a thing. And we get them there. But that it needs to be clear. I think this is the point I知 taking in alicia's comments is that it needs to be based on hi, we're not going to give you the same amount of money and we pray and hope that you're going to do the same level of work, but it is really a replaitioning you at this particular level because we have expectations that we are going to be checking on, whether it is quarterly or however length it needs to be, to say that you need to live up to your end of the bargain related to performance, and that is output, but it is also quality and other performance issues and working well with others. And that's something that is not -- we're signing off on it and we'll see in a year when we have your annual review. So I知 taking your comments as meaning everyone needs to be coming to the table with very clear expectations about why a particular salary is being offered or not, and I do have different expectations that they're not going to be getting, at least in one particular case that they're not going to get the exact same amount of money because it was clearly based on an output that will not be happening, but if you can relate that particular salary to a quality and performance level, well, so be it. But I have no expectations going into these salary negotiations as to what that final number would be, but it needs to be based on everybody having a meeting of the mind as to what are the expectations here? And it's not just output, it is hours, it is also team, it is also quality, it is also -- well, it's everything else.
>> the only way to have a meeting of the minds is to set forth the specific criteria. And we've not done that yet. We've simply approved a salary range that was recommended to us. If there is -- if there are specific performance criteria that we ought to approve, then I don't know that you go ahead and negotiate a salary, then approve the criteria unless you want them to apply next year. So if they're pos spoked to apply -- if they're supposed to apply when we do these negotiations in the next week or so, it makes sense to approve the criteria up front.
>> I think, judge, what we would like to do is sit down with the subcommittee and discuss some of the criteria that is -- that comes from the national association of medical examiners and see if it is appropriate. I think that sort of discussion needs to take place before we're ready to present and say, yeah, this is a criteria. But I think --
>> so when does the court hear it?
>> when we discuss it with the subcommittee. We'll put it back on --
>> do you want to do it next Tuesday? I値l be here.
>> I値l be here.
>> I値l be here.
>> 12-b back here next week with specific criteria. And provided to us by Friday this week would be some indication of what the other urban counties are doing that we believe represent best practices. How is that?
>> good.
>> 12-a next week. Next?
>> b is to establish accreditation guidance for medical examiner's office and authorize staff to proceed with next steps for the national association of medical examiner's accreditation as outlined in the report. And you have that also in your attachment under attachment b. I guess first we'd like an affirmative --
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> that good enough?
>> yes.
>> discussion? We've talked about this forever, y'all, right?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> c is authorize staff to explore the district concept for medical examiner's office.
>> what about b-1. That was all of it?
>> yeah, that's all of it. And thank you for bringing that up because the first step to this is to have the -- some folks from dallas county. They have gone -- they're going through their accreditation with the inspection in March and all really they're asking for now is just the slide and accommodations. And next Tuesday we wanted to talk to them and come back with a number for approval.
>> number?
>> the cost.
>> I thought bexar and dallas were willing to do it free?
>> no, sir. We have to do the training free, but we have to pay for their flights and hotel.
>> come back with a number, ms. Perez.
>> okay, good.
>> we're just waitoga number. Now, the names have representatives too, but they expect to get paid?
>> that's more expensive, it's like $5,000. This will be more like a thousand.
>> southwest.
>> if even that.
>> c, joe, do you want to address that?
>> you recall from our presentation that we talked about in creating the district and deciding really to authorize us to open those discussions. And I think get some direction from you on how you would like us to proceed or how you would like to proceed with that conversation if you are in fact interested in doing that.
>> I move approval, judge. We've already talked about this. [ inaudible ]. I think it's worth us going out and exploring the possibilities. It may go, it may not, but I think we need to --
>> it doesn't bother me, but I think early on you need to get some feedback from the other counties that we target for membership because at some point you have to wonder how much time and energy do we invest when it looks like the answer is obvious. It may be an obvious yes, may be an obvious no, but it makes sense for me to do it. So all of those points one through three all tie back to crft.
>> yes.
>> second? Was there a second already? Motion by Commissioner Gomez. Any discussion?
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> I continue to be concerned about -- first of all, I don't know why another county would be interested in our discussing something like this with them until we get our house in order. And this whole thing got started this way. The reason you're over there. The reason you're with the county. I mean, now, everything that we talked about is name. And I just don't -- I just don't get it in that I think we ought to use every imaginable concept, resource, idea, whatever it takes for us to put our m.e.'s office on good ground, on good sound ground operating. And I would think that -- and let me throw this in there when you bring this stuff back. I知 not interested in incentive pay. I think that one of the things that we got -- that we identified right off is that that was one of the problems that we had. If we were in -- one part of our discussion we are led to believe that we don't need to end any contracts and that we need to stay in place with these 45 counties. I mean, we are pretty soon going to find ourselves back in the same issue and problem. What we've really got is we've -- I mean, unless we change the setup drastically, we might find ourselves back in the same situation because what we really have is an inadequate number of folks to take on and do the amount of work that we've got coming at us, and especially if we want to try to get the name. So I really personally think that until we get our m.e.'s office, house, really in order to where people want to work with us, they want to be at Travis County for all sorts of reasons, because they're satisfied with what you get paid, but they really want -- if you don't enjoy coming to work everyday, if you don't enjoy getting dressed and saying this is my job and I look forward to doing that, and I think that we have some issues because there have been things unfortunately for the court that have mounted up and it was a train wreck when we didn't even know what going on. I mean, it's not easy and not necessarily enjoyable for me to try and answer, be it media or whoever it is that's calling me and saying, why aren't you getting a handle on this? Well, I think we are getting a handle on it now and I知 very supportive of the work, alicia, that you and joe and everybody has done. I think we're moving in the right direction. But I知 not interested in having a through f. How about do a? Let's get this thing moving. I know that we've always got to keep an a to other things that we need to look at, but I just want to be assured that our efforts aren't minimized by twetting the m. -- getting the m.e.'s office on good solid footing. And if somebody can convince me that we are doing all these other things -- we're fixing to have to really get high behind interviewing for not just one personnel, but apparently from what I understand, another pathologist. So we're -- and given the fact that we know this is not a reservoir -- this is not like going out and finding people that are -- industries where you have thousands of people in it. This is a very small cadre of folks that we're looking for. So I just wanted to say that, judge, because I do see our list continues to get longer with what we're trying to do with the m.e.'s office, and always with the eye -- I would think that name accreditation is going to be pretty definitive. And I bet you that there aren't very many name accredited m.e.'s offices that have incentive pay, for example. I mean, maybe I知 wrong and maybe y'all can bring me here's foreign of them -- 14 of them that do this. I just don't get that impression. I知 certainly more than willing to do the top couple, but I just want us to make sure that before we get into going down the path of doing some of these other things that we're getting this house in order.
>> the only thing I see that the valley is doing the research and the concepts is it's simply research and trying to communicate with other counties to see what's there. Meantime, we're working on other things to put this office back on track and make it perform very -- really good quality. So I don't see the problem with researching the concept while we do these other things.
>> and to me it's a matter of having a lot of things on parallel paths. I知 with you, Gerald. Of course the name thing. I suitly agree with you on the incentive thing. To me this is to be on parallel paths. And if we're going to keep these 45 contracts at least for the immediate future, I think that is a good discussion to have underway with Williamson county, hays county and bastrop county. They have absolutely no idea on an annual basis of what they need to set aside for autopsies because it could vary, vary greatly based on dollar times x on what do they need to put in their budget on an annual basis. They don't know what they need to be dining and they certainly have the need for the services. And we don't know what to expect on an annual basis. To me, this is kind of like it may be that we should stay on the separate contracts and it comes what may and we should just handle it. But it might work out better. But I don't mind having those parallel discussions. And I don't know in two weeks if we'll say let's go with the district or novment but to start gathering the information, as Margaret said, and it could be that these counties would prefer going to a district so that they can count on the services with us, we get a stable source of revenue and they have a number that they can count on related to their own budgetary process. I do know that as far as accreditation when we listen to the people that came and discussed the accreditation issues with us, and of course trying to get accreditation in those particular counties that have and are probably going through the process of accreditation, I think there are still some unknowns out there. Of course, the medical examiner being a hot button issue, I think that we need to move forward in my opinion to get as much information as we possibly can from those particular -- and I think in the motion it did mention the urban counties. That's why I asked you earlier in a of this particular item, the participants, who are the participants in the market salary survey. And it's just dealing with these particular persons and finding out counties -- counties, rather. And finding out what's working and what's not. It's been my opinion it's leading toward efficiency and effectiveness within that particular department. Now, if we have to go and find out what's working, what's not working, things like that, I just think we need to do that. And how many of these urban counties operate under the district format as opposed to doing it independently? How many act as a regional format, whatever you want to call it, regional, district, whatever. There has to be something there that is working or not working. The decrease in work load in my opinion helps as far as autopsies are concerned and a lot of these other things. That's part of the accreditation process. Yes, you can only handle and do so much, you know, per pathologist. So it a lot of unknowns out there. I like to investigate and turn every rock that we possibly can unturn to deliver a service to not only Travis County, but the counties that we deal with to make sure that we do it efficiently and effectively. And there are still some unnoins. And I just think this research, fact finding, you can call it fact finding, I think is a way that we can move forward. Otherwise, I don't want to get sometime mid in the -- stymied in the process of moving forward. I知 ready to move forward.
>> we will depend on the voluntary agreement of other partners. So it may be that in response to the initial contact they say contact two years from now when you've got your stuff in order, but they may be a lot more receptive than a lot of us on the court imagine. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> we know that this person is needed.
>> yes, sir. It's that -- that is the norm for all the other m.e. Offices that we visited. All three --
>> so if we approve this hiring, we approve this position, we will have added a total of how many positions since the budget?
>> since the budget you would have added six.
>> during the budget we added 5. Did that include --
>> with the dock, the doctor said it.
>> so the five included the -- the chief administrative officer.
>> officer, a forensic nurse, two investigators, and a path tech.
>> seven at a cost of how much?
>> I would have to get that for you. It was 335,000, 225 for the doctor, that's half a million. An annualized -- this one is about 60.
>> oh, I知 not there on this one. I think we ought to get the -- we got a whole lot of new people coming into a situation that it seems to me is -- is incredibly dynamic. It may be that this person is needed. And -- and I don't know. I just --
>> well, judge -- judge, what we could do is continue looking at the position and seeing how it fits in. It's possible that it will be ready for the 2007 budget. But at least we will do the research on it --
>> put it on hold -- I wouldn't close the door, I would put it on hold and I would let some of these other things land, also.
>> all right.
>> let us look at another proposal that would take, for example, one of the four and just reclassify it from a 13 to a 16. And then we can look fully look at it during the budget, too. That would be a lot less money.
>> I知 convinced that we are going to need this. If this is a question of when I can go there, I think that may be another way we can get to the same place. But I am struck by alicia's comment that all of the other accredited ones have this and it is something that we are going to have to do at some point as we move toward accreditation. If that's more effective of doing it, is to do a reclass.
>> in the interim.
>> in the interim as we settle and sort things out, but I知 prepared for this to be coming back to us because it's going to be necessary to come back.
>> I知 prepared to deal with the facts as they come. But if we can get this covered in another manner, immediately, then deal with it during the budget psych cycle, that sounds fine. At some point don't we have to pause and look at the situation, ask ourselves after this investment, after adding these new f.t.e.'s where do we stand? It may well be we need to do more, may well be that we conclude that we have done enough. No matter how many you get in, each person still has to make his or her contribution to the cause. Otherwise the office will be the same office it's been.
>> to the standards.
>> right.
>> I will withdraw my second.
>> okay.
>> I will --
>> new motion is to figure out a way to get this covered immediately. Let's leave it on the burner, let it simmer, at the appropriate time put something in that simmering pot.
>> is that a motion, judge? Go ahead.
>> the motion is to cover it another way immediately.
>> are we going to vote on that? [multiple voices]
>> any objection to those directions?
>> [multiple voices]
>> just directions, all right.
>> okay.
>> e.
>> suggest that you continue the current interlocal agreement and so we are basically this is intended to send a message to your customers that right now we are not cutting them off, that we are going to hire an additional pathologist, try to panel the workload while you continue to look at the options for what your service area is included in the district.
>> would it help to us send them a written status report? Because I know they had been reading the newspaper, getting -- getting media coverage, and hearing from some individuals who have become adamant detractors. I mean, at some point it seems to me that the word ought to come from -- from the Commissioners court as to the status of the medical examiner's office. What we are doing, why we are doing it, and there really are numerous things. I mean, I --
>> positive.
>> if I were one of the other candidates, I think that it would help me to get a formal communication from the source. You know, on Commissioners court. About what Travis County is doing at the medical examiner's office. So this is fine.
>> we are also assembling an e-mail list to give them regular updates on what our actions and staffing levels are, how we are doing in our progress to keep the customers informed.
>> the update that I have in mind is official in that it is not only on Travis County stationary, but it is signed by every member of the Commissioners court. I think the other counties are kind of used to -- you know --
>> judge, bear in mind that we do understand there really is no liability. The Travis County -- that Travis County has in the event that we just can't take, you know, an autopsy. I mean, if we just -- I mean, do we -- we can say you know what? We -- we don't have the space, we don't have the personnel, we don't -- we know that we had the interlocal agreement with you, I would think that all of these people have a backup plan. So this is -- this doesn't put us in a spot where we don't have the ability to say we can't do that right now.
>> who would make that call, though? That's a good point because, you know, sometimes we can get stretched out and stuff like that, maybe taking services from other counties, as far as autopsies that we may be to the point where -- who would make that call that we -- no we can't take da-da-da, because I know there are other counties that are -- at some point they -- they aren't accepting services so... Could you tell me who makes that call.
>> the medical examiner's office will take that call based upon what their workload looks like. The second sentence on this is to include updates, that's one of the items specifically we need to include in the contracts is the right to turn away cases and also grant them the right to go seek service from someone else.
>> so in writing that would be specified in writing this is the -- this is the limit, blah blah blah, we reached the limit, then -- I guess Commissioner uses a level head when he said there has to be a plan b of action if plan a doesn't work as far as having the body transported for autopsies here into -- to here in Travis County -- there had to be a plan b I guess for that county.
>> well, I would think. That's all that I wanted to make sure of is that we knew if we continued these interlocals, that we do -- that we do have the ability, the flexibility of telling somebody, for whatever is happening, all of a sudden we have two -- two more people leave or somebody leaves, that we -- that we can tell everybody, hey you know what? You may need to find somebody else because we can't do this. Because the last thing we want to do is put so much work on these folks that, you know, we are back in the same spot. So -- so sounds to me like that in the contract that we do have the ability to -- to --
>> well, not in the current contract, certainly in the one that we revised. We need to look at these contracts figure out where we are. There ought to be sort of a new contract provision in the status report. So even if we haven't done it, but we plan to do it. We ought to get some notice of that and the reasons why. I mean so -- I mean this written status report really would cover just a whole lot of areas and the contract would be one of them. That's what I have in mind.
>> yes, sir.
>> I mean, you know, a good example of what can happen to us is, you know, when all of those people got suffocated in that truck, all of a sudden we had 19 people come at us. Well, I mean,, you know, we need to be able to say here's how many we can take on, now you need to go, you know, send some of these, you know, bodies somewhere else. So, I mean, I just wanted to make sure that was in there because that really does allow us the flexibility that we need.
>> if there is going to be a new direction that happens to come down the pike at some point, it really is incumbent upon us being a good regional partner, which we have been for all of this time, to give all of the counties at least one and a half budget cycles to say, you know, what there may be something coming down here, but we are giving you lots of notice, in terms of not one budget process that we are already in. But a second budget process to say that you can count on us if you continue to want to do business with us, at least threw 2006, 2007, fiscal years, you may count on us but we are putting you on notice that we are going to have some good discussions over the next six to nine to 12 months so that you have plenty of time to plan for an alternative if indeed an alternative is necessary.
>> move approval of e with a written status report to partners covering all relevant issues.
>> second.
>> okay. Discussion? Covering all relevant issues underlined. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> strickland, facilities management. Concerns of court directing facilities to move forward with planning for immediate interim improvements to the forensic center to address functionality, efficiency and work condition issues. A planning report with recommendations for things that you can do this year will be presented to you after some further study. We need to include some input with the new cao to finallize the plans which you saw draft forms of in the report that was presented at the work session. The interim improvements proposed for this year would be those items which are not affected by or related to whether or not we do the addition. There were two schemes presented and certainly the addition is a more costly scheme. That's going to take more study to evaluate whether that addition is truly a value for -- for the county given the short and long-term issues that are being addressed together. But in the interim, we need to make an office for the fourth m.e., we need to correct dysfunctional conditions in the autopsy suite, we need to make improvements where we can in the lab areas. These are the things, we will come back with a specific cost proposal on, including possible engineering services in the near future. But we just need to move ahead.
>> we talked about the lab. That includes our ability to use the two autopsy stations.
>> yes, sir.
>> more than we are doing right for you.
>> yes. Because you want to have the ability to have two doctors working this that one autopsy suite at the two stations. All the time.
>> the total [indiscernible] come up with recommendation as far as your assessment, is there any suggestion or recommendation to deal with any other capital, maybe -- is there -- professionals such as maybe its, some other type of equipment, capital, that's also to be included with that recommendation?
>> it will be ancillary because we have already done, a lot of work has been done we have replaced about 10, 12, pc's office in. We are working on the update of software. A lot of work and effort has been done in the other areas. Records management, it, and the facilities would be the last piece of it. Anything that we would need related to any other -- the quooiment equipment would be included in their budget.
>> okay, all right.
>> we still have $300,000. Or close to it, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> so -- so that would be the source of funds that we would recommend using for interim improvements to the facility in this fiscal year.
>> okay.
>> in addition, there's some fund in the earmark in the allocate the reserve, in addition to the 300,000.
>> for the medical examiner's office.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> > we anticipate, just to wrap this up, we anticipate in a couple of weeks we will bring to you an overall report on the status of the budget, we will be working with p.b.o. On also setting up a -- a target for the new year. We will continue to work with subcommittee that I work with Commissioner Gomez and judge Biscoe as my subcommittee on the me office.
>> okay.
>> just give directions on this to continue --
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> is that direction enough? Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
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, March 1, 2006 7:37 AM